The Ninth U.S.
Circuit Court of Appeals has affirmed an order disgorging attorney fees paid to
an attorney and barring him from filing papers electronically until he
undergoes tutoring by the clerk’s office.

The
memorandum opinion, filed Wednesday, affirms an order of the Bankruptcy Appeals
Panel adverse to Contra Costa attorney Andrew W. Shalaby. It declares:

“The
local rules of the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Northern District of
California give the bankruptcy court the authority to impose sanctions on
attorneys practicing before it for failure to comply with the court’s local
rules….The local rules further provide that when an electronically filed
document requires the signature of a third party, such as a debtor, the
document must contain the original ink signature of the third party or a copy
of the original ink signature….

“The
record supports the bankruptcy court’s finding that Shalaby’s continued failure
to obtain the debtor’s original ink signature on documents electronically filed
with the court violated the local rules. The error was brought to Shalaby’s
attention, yet he continued to violate the rules. The district court did not
abuse its discretion by suspending his filing privileges until he had received
training.”

Must Refund
$4,000

The
opinion says the Bankruptcy Appeals Panel correctly found that a bankruptcy
judge did not abuse discretion in order that Shalaby return $4,000 to his
client. It explains:

“By
filing various amendments and advancing a number of arguments not supported by
bankruptcy law, Shalaby prolonged the duration of the proceedings and delayed
the debtor’s discharge, which resulted in greater cost and detriment to the
debtor and the estate. The bankruptcy court found Shalaby’s services were
neither necessary nor beneficial to the debtor.”

The
case is Nakhuda
v. Mansdorf,
16-60017.

Shalaby
was admitted to practice in 2000. His law degree is from the John F. Kennedy
University School of Law.

Sues President
Trump

On
Jan. 28, he brought an action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern
District of California “on behalf of the People of the State of California and
United States” against Donald Trump, who had been inaugurated as president
seven days earlier. Shalaby sought an order blocking an executive order
“purporting to suspend visas and immigration benefits of a seemingly undefined
class of persons, apparently based on ethnicity and/or religious beliefs.”

Judge
James Donato dismissed the action without a hearing.

Shalaby
has been found to be a vexatious litigant. The Ninth Circuit’s 2014 opinion in Shalaby v.
Bernzomatic
says:

“The
district court did not abuse its discretion by imposing a pre-filing
restriction against Shalaby after giving him notice and an opportunity to be
heard, developing an adequate record for review, making findings regarding his
frivolous litigation history, and tailoring the restriction narrowly….

“Shalaby
lacks standing to appeal the district court’s extension of the pre- filing
restriction to his wife. Sonia Dunn-Ruiz, who was not a party below.”

His
petition to the U.S. Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari was denied April 6,
2016.

In
a 2015 Court of Appeal case, the respondents sought $48,450 in sanctions
against Shalaby for a frivolous appeal. The Third District Justice William J.
Murray Jr. said: “Here, we will not say the appeal is totally and completely
without merit….”